EcoService Models Library (ESML)

Compare EMs

EM Variables by Variable Role

One quick way to compare ecological models (EMs) is by comparing their variables. Predictor variables show what kinds of influences a model is able to account for, and what kinds of data it requires. Response variables show what information a model is capable of estimating.

This first comparison shows the names (and units) of each EM’s variables, side-by-side, sorted by variable role. Variable roles in ESML are as follows:

Predictor Variables
- Time- or Space-Varying Variables
- Constants and Parameters
Intermediate (Computed) Variables
Response Variables
- Computed Response Variables
- Measured Response Variables

EM Variables by Category

A second way to use variables to compare EMs is by focusing on the kind of information each variable represents. The top-level categories in the ESML Variable Classification Hierarchy are as follows:

Policy Regarding Use or Management of Ecosystem Resources
Land Surface (or Water Body Bed) Cover, Use or Substrate
Human Demographic Data
Human-Produced Stressor or Enhancer of Ecosystem Goods and Services Production
Ecosystem Attributes and Potential Supply of Ecosystem Goods and Services
Non-monetary Indicators of Human Demand, Use or Benefit of Ecosystem Goods and Services
Monetary Values

Besides understanding model similarities, sorting the variables for each EM by these 7 categories makes it easier to see if the compared models can be linked using similar variables. For example, if one model estimates an ecosystem attribute (in Category 5), such as water clarity, as a response variable, and a second model uses a similar attribute (also in Category 5) as a predictor of recreational use, the two models can potentially be used in tandem. This comparison makes it easier to spot potential model linkages.

All EM Descriptors

This selection allows a more detailed comparison of EMs by model characteristics other than their variables. The 50-or-so EM descriptors for each model are presented, side-by-side, in the following categories:

EM Identity and Description
EM Modeling Approach
EM Locations, Environments, Ecology
EM Ecosystem Goods and Services (EGS) potentially modeled, by classification system

EM Descriptors by Modeling Concepts

This feature guides the user through the use of the following seven concepts for comparing and selecting EMs:

Conceptual Model
Modeling Objective
Modeling Context
Potential for Model Linkage
Feasibility of Model Use
Model Certainty
Model Structural Information

Though presented separately, these concepts are interdependent, and information presented under one concept may have relevance to other concepts as well.

Compare Criteria:

Show Criteria

Hide Criteria

Comparing:

EM-103
EM-321
EM-605
EM-812

Add EM to Compare:

EM Identity and Description

EM Identification

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-103	EM-321	EM-605	EM-812
EM Short Name em.detail.shortNameHelp ?	Birds in estuary habitats, Yaquina Estuary, WA, USA	Erosion prevention by vegetation, Portel, Portugal	VELMA v2.0, Ohio, USA	Wildflower mix supporting bees, CA, USA
EM Full Name em.detail.fullNameHelp ?	Bird use of estuarine habitats, Yaquina Estuary, WA, USA	Soil erosion prevention provided by vegetation cover, Portel municipality, Portugal	Visualizing Ecosystems for Land Management Assessments (VELMA) v2.0, Shayler Crossing watershed, Ohio, USA	Wildflower planting mix supporting bees in agricultural landscapes, CA, USA
EM Source or Collection em.detail.emSourceOrCollectionHelp ?	US EPA	EU Biodiversity Action 5	US EPA	None
EM Source Document ID	275	281	359 ? Comment: Document #366 is a supporting document for this EM. McKane et al. 2014, VELMA Version 2.0 User Manual and Technical Documentation.	400
Document Author em.detail.documentAuthorHelp ?	Frazier, M. R., Lamberson, J. O. and Nelson, W. G.	Guerra, C.A., Pinto-Correia, T., Metzger, M.J.	Hoghooghi, N., H. E. Golden, B. P. Bledsoe, B. L. Barnhart, A. F. Brookes, K. S. Djang, J. J. Halama, R. B. McKane, C. T. Nietch, and P. P. Pettus	Williams, N.M., Ward, K.L., Pope, N., Isaacs, R., Wilson, J., May, E.A., Ellis, J., Daniels, J., Pence, A., Ullmann, K., and J. Peters
Document Year em.detail.documentYearHelp ?	2014	2014	2018	2015
Document Title em.detail.sourceIdHelp ?	Intertidal habitat utilization patterns of birds in a Northeast Pacific estuary	Mapping soil erosion prevention using an ecosystem service modeling framework for integrated land management and policy	Cumulative effects of low impact development on watershed hydrology in a mixed land-cover system	Native wildflower Plantings support wild bee abundance and diversity in agricultural landscapes across the United States
Document Status em.detail.statusCategoryHelp ?	Peer reviewed and published	Peer reviewed and published	Peer reviewed and published	Peer reviewed and published
Comments on Status em.detail.commentsOnStatusHelp ?	Published journal manuscript	Published journal manuscript	Published journal manuscript	Published journal manuscript

Software and Access

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-103	EM-321	EM-605	EM-812
EM Software Access info Exit em.detail.modelAccessInformationHelp ?	Not applicable	Not applicable	https://www.epa.gov/water-research/visualizing-ecosystem-land-management-assessments-velma-model-20	Not applicable
Contact Name em.detail.contactNameHelp ?	M. R. Frazier ? Comment: Present address: M. R. Frazier National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, 735 State St. Suite 300, Santa Barbara, CA 93101, USA	Carlos A. Guerra	Heather Golden	Neal Williams
Contact Address	Western Ecology Division, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pacific coastal Ecology Branch, 2111 SE marine Science Drive, Newport, OR 97365	Instituto de Ciências Agrárias e Ambientais Mediterrânicas, Universidade de Évora, Pólo da Mitra, Apartado 94, 7002-554 Évora, Portugal	National Exposure Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, US EPA, Cincinnati, OH 45268, USA	Department of Entomology and Mematology, Univ. of CA, One Shilds Ave., Davis, CA 95616
Contact Email	frazier@nceas.ucsb.edu	cguerra@uevora.pt	Golden.Heather@epa.gov	nmwilliams@ucdavis.edu

EM Description

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-103	EM-321	EM-605	EM-812
Summary Description em.detail.summaryDescriptionHelp ?	AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "To describe bird utilization patterns of intertidal habitats within Yaquina estuary, Oregon, we conducted censuses to obtain bird species and abundance data for the five dominant estuarine intertidal habitats: Zostera marina (eelgrass), Upogebia (mud shrimp)/ mudflat, Neotrypaea (ghost shrimp)/sandflat, Zostera japonica (Japanese eelgrass), and low marsh. EPFs were developed for the following metrics of bird use: standardized species richness; Shannon diversity; and density for the following four groups: all birds, all birds excluding gulls, waterfowl (ducks and geese), and shorebirds."	ABSTRACT: "We present an integrative conceptual framework to estimate the provision of soil erosion prevention (SEP) by combining the structural impact of soil erosion and the social–ecological processes that allow for its mitigation. The framework was tested and illustrated in the Portel municipality in Southern Portugal, a Mediterranean silvo-pastoral system that is prone to desertification and soil degradation. The results show a clear difference in the spatial and temporal distribution of the capacity for ecosystem service provision and the actual ecosystem service provision." AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "To begin assessing the contribution of SEP we need to identify the structural impact of soil erosion, that is, the erosion that would occur when vegetation is absent and therefore no ES is provided. It determines the potential soil erosion in a given place and time and is related to rainfall erosivity (that is, the erosive potential of rainfall), soil erodibility (as a characteristic of the soil type) and local topography. Although external drivers can have an effect on these variables (for example, climate change), they are less prone to be changed directly by human action. The actual ES provision reduces the total amount of structural impact, and we define the remaining impact as the ES mitigated impact. We can then define the capacity for ES provision as a key component to determine the fraction of the structural impact that is mitigated…Following the conceptual outline, we will estimate the SEP provided by vegetation cover using an adaptation of the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE)."	ABSTRACT: "Low Impact Development (LID) is an alternative to conventional urban stormwater management practices, which aims at mitigating the impacts of urbanization on water quantity and quality. Plot and local scale studies provide evidence of LID effectiveness; however, little is known about the overall watershed scale influence of LID practices. This is particularly true in watersheds with a land cover that is more diverse than that of urban or suburban classifications alone. We address this watershed-scale gap by assessing the effects of three common LID practices (rain gardens, permeable pavement, and riparian buffers) on the hydrology of a 0.94 km2 mixed land cover watershed. We used a spatially-explicit ecohydrological model, called Visualizing Ecosystems for Land Management Assessments (VELMA), to compare changes in watershed hydrologic responses before and after the implementation of LID practices. For the LID scenarios, we examined different spatial configurations, using 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% implementation extents, to convert sidewalks into rain gardens, and parking lots and driveways into permeable pavement. We further applied 20 m and 40 m riparian buffers along streams that were adjacent to agricultural land cover…" AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "VELMA’s modeling domain is a three-dimensional matrix that includes information regarding surface topography, land use, and four soil layers. VELMA uses a distributed soil column framework to model the lateral and vertical movement of water and nutrients through the four soil layers. A soil water balance is solved for each layer. The soil column model is placed within a watershed framework to create a spatially distributed model applicable to watersheds (Figure 2, shown here with LID practices). Adjacent soil columns interact through down-gradient water transport. Water entering each pixel (via precipitation or flow from an adjacent pixel) can either first infiltrate into the implemented LID and the top soil layer, and then to the downslope pixel, or continue its downslope movement as the lateral surface flow. Surface and subsurface lateral flow are routed using a multiple flow direction method, as described in Abdelnour et al. [21]. A detailed description of the processes and equations can be found in McKane et al. [32], Abdelnour et al. [21], Abdelnour et al. [40]."	Abstract: " Global trends in pollinator-dependent crops have raised awareness of the need to support managed and wild bee populations to ensure sustainable crop production. Provision of sufficient forage resources is a key element for promoting bee populations within human impacted landscapes, particularly those in agricultural lands where demand for pollination service is high and land use and management practices have reduced available flowering resources. Recent government incentives in North America and Europe support the planting of wildflowers to benefit pollinators; surprisingly, in North America there has been almost no rigorous testing of the performance of wildflower mixes, or their ability to support wild bee abundance and diversity. We tested different wildflower mixes in a spatially replicated, multiyear study in three regions of North America where production of pollinatordependent crops is high: Florida, Michigan, and California. In each region, we quantified flowering among wildflower mixes composed of annual and perennial species, and with high and low relative diversity. We measured the abundance and species richness of wild bees, honey bees, and syrphid flies at each mix over two seasons. In each region, some but not all wildflower mixes provided significantly greater floral display area than unmanaged weedy control plots. Mixes also attracted greater abundance and richness of wild bees, although the identity of best mixes varied among regions. By partitioning floral display size from mix identity we show the importance of display size for attracting abundant and diverse wild bees. Season-long monitoring also revealed that designing mixes to provide continuous bloom throughout the growing season is critical to supporting the greatest pollinator species richness. Contrary to expectation, perennials bloomed in their first season, and complementarity in attraction of pollinators among annuals and perennials suggests that inclusion of functionally diverse species may provide the greatest benefit. Wildflower mixes may be particularly important for providing resources for some taxa, such as bumble bees, which are known to be in decline in several regions of North America. No mix consistently attained the full diversity that was planted. Further study is needed on how to achieve the desired floral display and diversity from seed mixes. " Additional information in supplemental Appendices online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/14-1748.1.sm
Specific Policy or Decision Context Cited em.detail.policyDecisionContextHelp ?	None identified	None identified	None identified	None identified
Biophysical Context	Estuarine intertidal, eelgrass, mudflat, sandflat and low marsh	Open savannah-like forest of cork (Quercus suber) and holm (Quercus ilex) oaks, with trees of different ages randomly dispersed in changing densities, and pastures in the under cover. The pastures are mostly natural in a mosaic with patches of shrubs, which differ in size and the distribution depends mainly on the grazing intensity. Shallow, poor soils are prone to erosion, especially in areas with high grazing pressure.	The Shayler Crossing (SHC) watershed is a subwatershed of the East Fork Little Miami River Watershed in southwest Ohio, USA and falls within the Till Plains region of the Central Lowland physiographic province. The Till Plains region is a topographically young and extensive flat plain, with many areas remaining undissected by even the smallest stream. The bedrock is buried under a mantle of glacial drift 3–15 m thick. The Digital Elevation Model (DEM) has a maximum value of ~269 m (North American_1983 datum) within the watershed boundary (Figure 1). The soils are primarily the Avonburg and Rossmoyne series, with high silty clay loam content and poor to moderate infiltration. Average annual precipitation for the period, 1990 through 2011, was 1097.4 _ 173.5 mm. Average annual air temperature for the same period was 12 _C Mixed land cover suburban watershed. The primary land uses consist of 64.1% urban or developed area (including 37% lawn, 12% building, 6.5% street, 6.4% sidewalk, and 2.1% parking lot and driveway), 23% agriculture, and 13% deciduous forest. Total imperviousness covers approximately 27% of the watershed area.	field plots near agricultural fields (mixed row crop, almond, walnuts), central valley, Ca
EM Scenario Drivers em.detail.scenarioDriverHelp ?	No scenarios presented	Different land management practices as represented by the comparison of different grazing intensities (i.e., livestock densities) in the whole study area and in three Civil Parishes within the study area	Three types of Low Impact Development (LID) practices (rain gardens, permeable pavements, forested riparian buffers) applied a different conversion levels.	Varied wildflower planting mixes of annuals and perennials

EM Relationship to Other EMs or Applications

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-103	EM-321	EM-605	EM-812
Method Only, Application of Method or Model Run em.detail.methodOrAppHelp ?	Method + Application	Method + Application (multiple runs exist) View EM Runs	Method + Application (multiple runs exist) View EM Runs	Method + Application (multiple runs exist) View EM Runs
New or Pre-existing EM? em.detail.newOrExistHelp ?	New or revised model	New or revised model	New or revised model	New or revised model

Related EMs (for example, other versions or derivations of this EM) described in ESML

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-103	EM-321	EM-605	EM-812
Document ID for related EM em.detail.relatedEmDocumentIdHelp ?	None	Doc-282 \| Doc-283 \| Doc-284 \| Doc-285	Doc-13 \| Doc-366	Doc-400
EM ID for related EM em.detail.relatedEmEmIdHelp ?	None	None	EM-375 \| EM-377 \| EM-378 \| EM-884 \| EM-883 \| EM-887	EM-784 \| EM-793

EM Modeling Approach

EM Relationship to Time

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-103	EM-321	EM-605	EM-812
EM Temporal Extent em.detail.tempExtentHelp ?	December 2007 - November 2008	January to December 2003	Jan 1, 2009 to Dec 31, 2011	2011-2012
EM Time Dependence em.detail.timeDependencyHelp ?	time-stationary	time-dependent	time-dependent	time-dependent
EM Time Reference (Future/Past) em.detail.futurePastHelp ?	Not applicable	future time	past time	past time
EM Time Continuity em.detail.continueDiscreteHelp ?	Not applicable	discrete	discrete	discrete
EM Temporal Grain Size Value em.detail.tempGrainSizeHelp ?	Not applicable	1	1	1
EM Temporal Grain Size Unit em.detail.tempGrainSizeUnitHelp ?	Not applicable	Month	Day	Year

EM Spatial Extent

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-103	EM-321	EM-605	EM-812
Bounding Type em.detail.boundingTypeHelp ?	Physiographic or ecological	Geopolitical	Watershed/Catchment/HUC	Point or points ? Comment: This is a guess based on information in the document. 3 field sites were separated by up to 9km
Spatial Extent Name em.detail.extentNameHelp ?	Yaquina Estuary (intertidal), Oregon, USA	Portel municipality	Shayler Crossing watershed, a subwatershed of the East Fork Little Miami River Watershed	Agricultural plots
Spatial Extent Area (Magnitude) em.detail.extentAreaHelp ?	1-10 km^2	100-1000 km^2	10-100 ha	10-100 km^2

Spatial Distribution of Computations

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-103	EM-321	EM-605	EM-812
EM Spatial Distribution em.detail.distributeLumpHelp ?	spatially distributed (in at least some cases)	spatially distributed (in at least some cases)	spatially distributed (in at least some cases)	spatially lumped (in all cases)
Spatial Grain Type em.detail.spGrainTypeHelp ?	other (habitat type)	area, for pixel or radial feature	area, for pixel or radial feature	Not applicable
Spatial Grain Size em.detail.spGrainSizeHelp ?	0.87-104.29 ha	250 m x 250 m	10m x 10m	Not applicable

EM Structure and Computation Approach

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-103	EM-321	EM-605	EM-812
EM Computational Approach em.detail.emComputationalApproachHelp ?	Analytic	Analytic	Numeric	Numeric
EM Determinism em.detail.deterStochHelp ?	deterministic	deterministic	deterministic	deterministic
Statistical Estimation of EM em.detail.statisticalEstimationHelp ?	Conventional (frequentist) statistics	Conventional (frequentist) statistics	Conventional (frequentist) statistics	Conventional (frequentist) statistics

Model Checking Procedures Used

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-103	EM-321	EM-605	EM-812
Model Calibration Reported? em.detail.calibrationHelp ?	Unclear	No	Yes	No
Model Goodness of Fit Reported? em.detail.goodnessFitHelp ?	No	No	Yes ? Comment: Goodness of fit for calibrated (2009-2010) and observed streamflow.	No
Goodness of Fit (metric\| value \| unit) em.detail.goodnessFitValuesHelp ?	None	None	None	None
Model Operational Validation Reported? em.detail.validationHelp ?	No	No	Yes	No
Model Uncertainty Analysis Reported? em.detail.uncertaintyAnalysisHelp ?	No	No	No	No
Model Sensitivity Analysis Reported? em.detail.sensAnalysisHelp ?	No	No	No	No
Model Sensitivity Analysis Include Interactions? em.detail.interactionConsiderHelp ?	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable

EM Locations, Environments, Ecology

Location of EM Application

Terrestrial location (Classification hierarchy: Continent > Country > U.S. State [United States only])

EM-103	EM-321	EM-605	EM-812
North America United States Oregon	Europe Portugal	North America United States Ohio	North America United States California

Marine location (Classification hierarchy: Realm > Region > Province > Ecoregion)

EM-103	EM-321	EM-605	EM-812
Temperate North Pacific Northeast Pacific Cold Temperate Northeast Pacific Oregon, Washington, Vancouver Coast and Shelf	None	None	None

Centroid Lat/Long (Decimal Degree)

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-103	EM-321	EM-605	EM-812
Centroid Latitude em.detail.ddLatHelp ?	44.62	38.3	39.19	29.4
Centroid Longitude em.detail.ddLongHelp ?	-124.06	-7.7	-84.29	-82.18
Centroid Datum em.detail.datumHelp ?	None provided	WGS84	WGS84	WGS84
Centroid Coordinates Status em.detail.coordinateStatusHelp ?	Provided	Estimated	Provided	Provided

Environments and Scales Modeled

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-103	EM-321	EM-605	EM-812
EM Environmental Sub-Class em.detail.emEnvironmentalSubclassHelp ?	Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine	Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified) \| Forests \| Agroecosystems \| Scrubland/Shrubland	Rivers and Streams \| Ground Water \| Forests \| Agroecosystems \| Created Greenspace	Agroecosystems
Specific Environment Type em.detail.specificEnvTypeHelp ?	Estuarine intertidal	Silvo-pastoral system	Mixed land cover suburban watershed	Agricultural landscape
EM Ecological Scale em.detail.ecoScaleHelp ?	Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class	Ecological scale is coarser than that of the Environmental Sub-class	Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class	Ecological scale corresponds to the Environmental Sub-class

Scale and taxa of organisms modeled

Scale of differentiation of organisms modeled

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-103	EM-321	EM-605	EM-812
EM Organismal Scale em.detail.orgScaleHelp ?	Guild or Assemblage	Not applicable	Not applicable	Species

Taxonomic level and name of organisms or groups identified

EM-103	EM-321	EM-605	EM-812
other Pelicans/cormorants Raptors Shorebirds Songbirds Loons/grebes Genus Geese Family Rails Corvids Herons/egrets Alcids Terns/gulls Ducks	None Available	None Available	other Bees Species Lupinus succulentus Trifolium obtusiflorum Lupinus densiflorus Eschscholzia californica Lotus scoparius Rudbeckia hirta Trifolium willdenovii Phacelia tanacetifolia Phacelia californica Helianthus bolanderi Trifolium fucatum Grindelia camporum Lupinus formosus Nemophila menziesii Trichostema lanceolatum Achillea millefolium Clarkia unguinculata

EnviroAtlas URL

EM-103	EM-321	EM-605	EM-812
None Available	Average Annual Precipitation	Average Annual Precipitation, Average Annual Daily Potential Wind Energy	None Available

EM Ecosystem Goods and Services (EGS) potentially modeled, by classification system

CICES v 4.3 - Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (Section > Division > Group > Class)

EM-103	EM-321	EM-605	EM-812
[Ecosystem] Provisioning Nutrition Biomass Wild animals and their outputs [Ecosystem] Regulation & Maintenance Maintenance of physical, chemical, biological conditions Lifecycle maintenance, habitat and gene pool protection Maintaining nursery populations and habitats	[Ecosystem] Regulation & Maintenance Mediation of flows Mass flows Buffering and attenuation of mass flows Mass stabilisation and control of erosion rates	[Ecosystem] Regulation & Maintenance Mediation of flows Liquid flows Flood protection	[Ecosystem] Regulation & Maintenance Maintenance of physical, chemical, biological conditions Lifecycle maintenance, habitat and gene pool protection Pollination and seed dispersal

<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/national-ecosystem-services-classification-system-nescs-plus">National Ecosystem Services Classification System (NESCS) Plus</a>

(Environmental Subclass > Ecological End-Product (EEP) > EEP Subclass > EEP Modifier)

EM-103	EM-321	EM-605	EM-812
Near Coastal Marine/Estuarine (113) Fauna (4) Birds Stock Indicator Ducks Stock Indicator Geese Stock Indicator	Forests (21) Soil (2) Specific types of soil Flow Indicator Scrubland/Shrubland (24) Soil (2) Specific types of soil Flow Indicator Agroecosystems (22) Soil (2) Specific types of soil Flow Indicator	Rivers and Streams (111) Water (3) Liquid water Flow Indicator	Agroecosystems (22) Fauna (4) Pollinators Site Indicator

EcoService Models Library (ESML)

Compare EMs

EM Variables by Variable Role

EM Variables by Category

All EM Descriptors

EM Descriptors by Modeling Concepts

Comparing:

EM Identity and Description

Comment:

Comment:

Related EMs (for example, other versions or derivations of this EM) described in ESML

EM Modeling Approach

Comment:

Comment:

EM Locations, Environments, Ecology

Terrestrial location (Classification hierarchy: Continent > Country > U.S. State [United States only])

Marine location (Classification hierarchy: Realm > Region > Province > Ecoregion)

Centroid Lat/Long (Decimal Degree)

Scale of differentiation of organisms modeled

Taxonomic level and name of organisms or groups identified

EnviroAtlas URL

EM Ecosystem Goods and Services (EGS) potentially modeled, by classification system

CICES v 4.3 - Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (Section > Division > Group > Class)

<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/national-ecosystem-services-classification-system-nescs-plus">National Ecosystem Services Classification System (NESCS) Plus</a>

(Environmental Subclass > Ecological End-Product (EEP) > EEP Subclass > EEP Modifier)